Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Design and Construction of Foundations for the Saint Lawrence River Bridge, A30 Montral

Andrew Cushing, Robert Talby, Ivan Hee, and Andy Dodds Arup Canada,Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada David Garcia Cueto Nouvelle Autoroute 30 CJV, Montral, Qubec, Canada
ABSTRACT The final portion of the Autoroute 30 to the south and west of Montral opened to the public in December 2012. A major component of this landmark project included the construction of a 1.8km long bridge over the Saint Lawrence River between Les Cdres and St. Timothe. This paper provides a summary of key aspects of the bridges foundation design and construction. These include the geological investigations prior to and during construction, addressing lateral seismic and ice impact loading in the foundation design, temporary works construction (including temporary access bunds and foundation cofferdams), overburden soil and rock excavation, rock surface inspection in the wet and dry, micropile installation and testing, and concreting in cold-weather. RSUM Le dernier tronon de l'autoroute 30 au sud et l'ouest de Montral a t ouvert au public en Dcembre 2012. Une composante importante de ce projet capital comprenait la construction d'un pont dune longueur de 1,8 km sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent entre Les Cdres et Saint-Timothe. Ce document prsente un rsum des principaux aspects de la conception et de la construction des fondations du pont. Une attention particulire est accorde aux tudes gologiques avant et pendant la construction, les effets des charges dimpact, sismiques et en provenant de la glace sur la conception des fondations, la construction temporaire des travaux (y compris les jets de roc d'accs temporaires et les batardeaux), le mort-terrain et l'excavation du roc, l'inspection de surface de la roche, l'installation, en conditions submerges et sches, des micropieux et d'essais, et les dtails de btonnage par temps froid. 1 INTRODUCTION 3 The Nouvelle Autoroute 30 (A30) Public Private Partnership (PPP) construction project is located south and west of the island of Montral, between VaudreuilDorion and Chteauguay in Qubec, Canada. The design and construction was carried out over a four year period on a design-build basis by the Nouvelle Autoroute 30 Construction Joint Venture (NA30 CJV), comprised of Dragados Canada, Acciona Infrastructures Canada, Aecon, and Verrault. Lead design services were provided by Arup. This paper is focused on the design and construction of the foundations for the A30 bridge over the Saint Lawrence River between the townships of Les Cdres and St. Timothe, as shown in Figure 1. 2 BRIDGE CONFIGURATION GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SITE INVESTIGATION AND

The bridge has a total length of 1.8 km and includes two separated decks, each supporting a two lane highway as shown in Figure 2. Each deck is supported by 2 abutments and 41 piers with a typical span length of 45m, which includes a single abutment on each bank of the river, resulting in a total of 82 individual foundation units. The decks are supported on single columns which are in turn supported by isolated pad footings bearing directly onto rock. Each footing is anchored to the rock with drilled and grouted micropiles (between 8 and 28 micropiles at each footing, depending upon water depth and column height) to resist sliding and overturning due to ice loading and in the event of an earthquake.

At the start of the tender design (mid-2007), only six historical borings were available at the Saint Lawrence River Bridge site. These borings were used to develop a tender design submitted in March 2008. Shortly after the preferred bidder was announced in June 2008, NA30 CJV implemented a project-wide site investigation for detailed design starting in August 2008 which ran through to the end of the year. During this 2008 site investigation (performed by InspecSol of Montral), a total of 42 boreholes were advanced at the Saint Lawrence River Bridge site, with a minimum of one boring for each pair of foundation units. The location of each borehole was centered at the eastern and western piers in an alternating fashion. Disturbed split spoon sampling was obtained in the overburden soils, while NQ-caliber double core barrel drilling was used to obtain rock core samples. Rock testing included unconfined compression (UCS) with strain measurements and Brazilian tension (splitting) testing. A series of additional boreholes were advanced in the summer of 2009 to investigate a zone of disturbed rock centered near Piers 15 and 16 (closer to the northern shoreline) that was identified in the 2008 investigation. Once construction started at the bridge site in the fall of 2009, destructive holes were advanced at locations with no available corehole to investigate the potential presence of vertical joints below rock formation level. Another series of coreholes were advanced at footing unit locations not yet excavated which were not cored in 2008.

Figure 1. Autoroute 30 PPP Route Alignment With Location of the Saint Lawrence River Bridge

Figure 2. Saint Lawrence River Bridge Superstructure and Substructure Configuration

4 4.1

GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Typical Conditions

is typically slightly more weathered. Relatively lower RQD values are apparent in the disturbed zone. 4.4 Intact Rock Strength (UCS)

The bedrock at the Saint Lawrence River bridge site is typically characterized as strong to very strong light grey quartzitic sandstone with beds of medium to dark grey slightly dolomitic sandstone. The bedrock geology at the northern portion of the bridge is typical of the Cambrian Postdam Group (Cairnside Formation), while at the southern portion it is typical of the Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Group (Theresa Formation). The quartzitic sandstone rock is typically fresh or only slightly weathered with moderately close to widely spaced discontinuities. The dolomitic sandstone is typically slightly weathered with moderately close to close discontinuities, and the presence of small vugs were noted in some cases. The rock is horizontally bedded, and thin black shale beds were encountered between 3m and 6m below the rock line in selected borings. A summary of the stratigraphy encountered at the Saint Lawrence River Bridge site is provided in Table 1. A generalized cross-section of the bridge is provided in Figure 3, showing the position of the deck, the piers and abutments, depth to rock, overburden thickness, and minimum / maximum water levels. 4.2 Localized Disturbed Zone

Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing was performed on 51 samples of intact bedrock obtained during the historical and 2008 ground investigations. A summary of this data is provided in Table 2. Analysis of UCS data obtained in the disturbed rock zone around Piers 15 and 16 is also shown in Table 2 in recognition of relatively lower intact strength results. An intact UCS design value of 150MPa was considered appropriate for the Cambrian and Ordovician Groups outside of the disturbed zone. In the disturbed zone, an intact UCS design value of 82MPa was adopted. 4.5 Hoek-Brown Mohr-Coulomb Strength Parameters

An effective cohesion intercept (c) of 10MPa and effective internal friction angle () of 41 was assessed for the bedrock based on Hoek-Brown and Mohr-Coulomb strength relations (Wyllie and Mah, 2004). Reduced strength parameters corresponding to a c value of 5MPa and value of 36 were assessed for the rock in the disturbed zone. 4.6 Intact Rock and Rock Mass Stiffness

A number of boreholes confirmed the existence of a zone of disturbed rock around Piers 15 and 16 (closer to the northern shoreline), with an estimated width of approximately 60m. Two types of disturbance were described within the rock core: (i) contemporaneous 'slumping', indicating fault movement soon after deposition, and (ii) a later, more brittle fracturing and faulting. Much of the brecciated texture appeared to be contemporaneous slump breccia. The total core recovery (TCR) and rock quality designation (RQD) were affected by the later brittle faulting rather than the presence of the 'slump breccia'. The disturbed zone was interpreted as an ancient fault zone at the interface of the older Cambrian Potsdam Group (Cairnside Formation) with the younger Ordovcian Beckmantown Group (Theresa Formation). The fault corresponds with a N120 fault identified on the Tectonic Map of Canada (1969), and is believed to have developed in the Proterozoic (greater than 570 million years ago). The last major movement of similarly oriented faults is inferred to be in the Cretaceous period, approximately 125 million years ago (Rocher, et al., 2003). The identified fault is therefore not considered to be active, and risk of fault rupture is considered to be very low. 4.3 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

Intact rock stiffness was measured with strain gauges during UCS testing. Little difference was apparent between the Cambrian and Ordovician Groups, with average modulus-to-strength ratio values of 284 and 306, respectively. Rock mass stiffness is somewhat less than that of intact rock due to the presence of discontinuities. Rock mass stiffness is difficult to measure without large-scale in-situ tests. However, rock mass stiffness may be estimated in several ways, for example:

Emass = (2 RMR) 100 (GPa)

[1]

The RQD of the bedrock cores varied between 0 and 100%, with approximately 80% of the recorded RQD values in excess of 70%. All but four of the zero RQD values were recorded within the upper 1m of rock, which

where RMR is the Rock Mass Rating after Bieniawski (1974). RMR is calculated on the basis of the mass properties of the rock, such as joint spacing and groundwater conditions. A typical RMR of 75 was estimated for the rock mass at this site, giving Emass = 50GPa. In the upper 1m or so, where rock is more weathered and fractured, an RMR of 60 was deemed more appropriate, giving Emass = 20GPa. Another empirical relationship has been proposed by Hoek and Brown (Wyllie and Mah, 2004) based on a system similar to Bieniawski. This indicates an Emass of 35GPa would be appropriate for typical rock mass conditions based on an unconfined compressive strength of 150MPa for intact rock. An Emass of between 20GPa and 50GPa was therefore considered appropriate for design. A reduced Emass of approximately 7GPa for rock within the disturbed zone was assessed based on the estimated Hoek-Brown parameters.

Table 1. Summary of Stratigraphy at Saint Lawrence River Bridge, Autoroute 30 Highest Top Lowest Base Maximum Stratum (Locations) El. (m) El. (m) Thickness (m) Fill (Abutments and Land Piers) 29.5 28.6 0.8 Champlain Deposits (Abutments and Land Piers) 34.1 30.6 2.2 Alluvial Deposits Clay (Water Piers) 30.0 24.3 2.1 Alluvial Deposits Sand and Gravel (Water Piers) 27.3 22.0 2.4 Glacial Till Deposits (Abutments and Land Piers) 32.8 19.2 4.6 Cambrian and Ordovican Sandstone Bedrock (All Locations) 29.8 19.2(1) (1) Base not proven. Highest top and lowest base refers to maximum and minimum top of rock elevations.

Figure 3. Saint Lawrence River Bridge Generalized Structure and Geologic Cross Section Table 2. Summary of UCS Data for Bedrock Geology Disturbed Cambrian Ordovician Zone UCS (MPa) Minimum 142 64 64 Maximum 265 300 96 Mean 196 184 82 (No. of Tests) (14) (37) (4) 5 5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN Basis of Design foundation type, loading mode (compression or tension), and how the ultimate geotechnical resistance is determined (i.e., from a static analysis estimate or measured directly by a static load test). As both pre-production and production load testing of micropiles was performed on site, a resistance factor of 0.6 was used to evaluate the factored ULS tensile resistance of these foundation elements. Table 3. Resistance Factors for Foundations (CSA, 2006) Resistance Factor Static Analysis Static Load Estimate Test Deep Foundations 0.3 0.4 (Tension) Shallow Footings 0.8 (Sliding) Shallow Footings 0.5 (Bearing) 5.2 Design Parameters

Design of the Saint Lawrence River Bridge foundations was undertaken in accordance with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA, 2006). This code adopts a limit state design approach in which the factored resistance (either structural or geotechnical) must equal or exceed each and every factored load combination. At the ultimate limit state (ULS), the factored geotechnical resistance is obtained by multiplying the ultimate geotechnical resistance, calculated using unfactored rock parameters, by a resistance factor. The resistance factors specified in the code which are applicable to the Saint Lawrence River Bridge foundation design are presented in Table 3. They are a function of

Bearing Capacity Based on the typical rock core descriptors assessed for design, a factored geotechnical resistance at the ultimate

limit state (ULS) for bearing resistance equal to 12.5 MPa was recommended for the undisturbed rock design category. A factored geotechnical resistance at ULS for bearing resistance equal to 6.5MPa was recommended for the disturbed rock design category. The lower design value for the disturbed rock design category addressed the potential for greater settlement under serviceability limit state (SLS) loading conditions and reduced resistance to shear leading to possible bearing related failure under ULS loading conditions. Footing performance for the SLS was considered to be more significant for both design categories. Base Shear Resistance An interface friction between the footing and bedrock base was used to define base shear resistance, where the base shear resistance is equal to the normal force acting on the base multiplied by the interface friction coefficient. The following factored ULS interface friction coefficients were recommended for design: 0.4 for footings constructed underwater (ultimate interface coefficient = 0.5); 0.6 for footings constructed in the dry (ultimate interface coefficient = 0.75). The possibility of some soil and/or sediment remaining on bearing surfaces constructed underwater was accounted for by adopting ultimate interface friction value appropriate to a clayey-gravel base material. Micropile Tension Resistance The design geotechnical capacity of each micropile corresponded to a maximum factored tension load of 1.8MN. Hence, the factored geotechnical resistance must equal or exceed this value. Pre-production load testing results proved an ultimate grout-to-rock shear stress of 1662kPa, with a factored bond stress of approximately 665kPa. The typical micropile bond length of 6m provided a factored geotechnical tensile resistance of 1.9MN. 6 6.1 FOUNDATION COMPONENTS Blinding Layer

While initially envisioned to be placed exclusively as an independent underwater (tremie) pour, the blinding layer was placed on site (as an independent pour) exclusively in the dry. In instances where the reinforced concrete plug was placed underwater using tremie methods, the plug rebar cage was successfully suspended from the top of the cofferdam, with the plug and blinding layer concrete being placed in a single integral pour, effectively increasing the concrete cover on the bottom of the plug. 6.2 Reinforced Concrete Plug

For the piers located in deeper water, a 6m square reinforced concrete plug was installed directly above the underlying rock (or blinding layer). Its main purpose was to serve as a pedestal to transfer loading from the 4.5m square pier footing above to the underlying competent bedrock below. The decision to incorporate a concrete plug in the foundation design was driven by limitations on the pier column height for a given column diameter, as well as the need to provide hydraulic cut-off and partial counterweight to resist buoyancy to permit cofferdam dewatering for subsequent pier footing construction in the dry. The plug rebar cages were fabricated with some degree of flexibility so the plug height could be adjusted to accommodate fluctuations in the encountered rock level relative to the anticipated level. In instances where lower than anticipated rock levels were encountered, all efforts were made to first lengthen the column as much as possible and then thicken the plug if required, as this approach minimized the resulting volume of additional concrete. 6.3 Reinforced Concrete Pier Footing

Reinforced concrete pier footings, with a 4.5m square footprint, were constructed to transfer the load from the single supporting column above through the plug below to the lower rock. The micropiles extended through the plug and into the pier footing, with the tension of the micropiles being transferred to the concrete in compression and shear with the use of galvanized steel plates, as shown in Figure 6. 6.4 Micropiles

An unreinforced layer of concrete (or blinding layer) was cast against cleaned and competent bedrock to accommodate variations in rock elevation and to provide a level surface at a defined elevation so that the subsequent tremie plug reinforcement could be placed accurately. The minimum specified thickness was 150mm, while the maximum permissible all-around unconfined thickness was limited to 850mm at the center of the footing. Localized unconfined thicknesses of up to 1150mm were permitted, provided that this higher value covered no more than one-third of the overall pier footing bearing area. Any depth of blinding concrete which was confined laterally by competent bedrock was not included in the computation of its overall thickness, as such concrete simply replaced over-excavated rock.

More than 1400 micropiles were installed, each comprising of a 65mm diameter (Grade 1035MPa) threaded and galvanized steel bar with double corrosion protection (i.e. minimum 5mm grout encapsulation within a corrugated HDPE sheath) inserted into a 150mm diameter hole. A grout tube was installed full-length along the encapsulated rebar to ensure full grout contact along the entire bond length in the underlying rock, which was typically 6m, but increased locally to either 7m or 9.5m at a total of 8 footing units (4 piers) as a consequence of a zone of disturbed rock at these locations. The micropiles extend through the lower plug and into the concrete pier footing above. Micropiles situated in the corners had reaction plates embedded within both the plug and the footing (Figure 6) to provide hydraulic uplift

resistance to the plug in the temporary construction condition. The micropiles act as passive tension elements. Pre-production uplift testing was performed on sacrificial micropiles to validate the values of unit side resistance for the micropile design. In addition, two micropiles at each footing were randomly selected for proof testing during production installation. 7 7.1 TEMPORARY WORKS CONSTRUCTION Temporary access bunds FOR FOUNDATION

FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

Temporary works for the A30 Saint Lawrence River Bridge started in the fall of 2009 when access bunds comprised of crushed rock and gravel were installed from the northern and southern banks of the river. With the exception of nine bridge piers situated within the deepest water, access to all other piers over shallower water was provided by these bunds. As the river level was controlled by hydroelectric dams both upstream and downstream of the A30 alignment, the maximum anticipated water level was known with more certainty. The draft of the bunds and all temporary cofferdams was designed accordingly. 7.2 Temporary cofferdams

The construction sequence for the Saint Lawrence River Bridge foundations where the plug rebar placement and concreting was performed underwater is shown schematically in Figure 4. A step-by step narrative of the construction sequence is provided as follows: (a) cofferdam installation, with toe of cofferdam at or near the rock surface (excavation was typically performed prior to cofferdam placement, especially in shallower water); (b) excavation of soil and rock from within the cofferdam in deeper water, and installation of internal bracing; (c) placement of bottom plug rebar cage, micropile sleeves, and tremie concreting of the bottom plug; (d) cofferdam dewatering; (e) micropile drilling, placement and grouting from a working platform on top of the cofferdam, and footing construction (in the dry). In instances where the plug rebar placement and concreting were performed in the dry (i.e., for land piers and shallow water piers), all overburden excavation was performed prior to placement of the cofferdam. The cofferdam was then dewatered during rock formation inspection, followed by supplemental rock excavation (if required), blinding concrete placement, plug rebar placement and concreting, and micropile drilling and grouting. 9 ROCK FOUNDATION INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS

The construction of all underwater bridge pier foundations required a temporary cofferdam of some type. Construction of the bridge pier foundations directly accessible from the temporary access bunds in shallower water closer to the shorelines started with excavation of riverbed sediments (including boulders and cobbles) and fractured and weathered rock using a long-arm excavator. A temporary cofferdam with an approximate square footprint was then placed at each of the eastern and western foundation pad locations. These square cofferdams were comprised either of driven sheet piling installed around a steel template or pre-fabricated steel walls with a tapered cutting shoe at the base (Figure 5). In each case, the positioning of the cofferdam was aided by a driven steel spud in each of the four corners of the cofferdam. Grouting was sometimes used to seal the interface between the bottom of the cofferdam and underlying rock to control the water inflow rate during dewatering. Additional riverbed debris and fractured rock was then removed from the interior of the cofferdam. For the nine piers not directly accessible from the bunds, cofferdams comprised of driven sheet piling were installed using construction equipment on barges, with each such cofferdam encompassing both the eastern and western foundation pads simultaneously within a larger rectangular footprint. To facilitate driving the sheet piles through boulders and cobbles, a heavy chisel was dropped through a steel pipe situated within the sheet pile recess to break up such obstructions. For environmental reasons, all excavation was performed exclusively from within these nine cofferdams.

A third party (InspecSol of Montral) was responsible for inspecting the condition and cleanliness of the exposed rock surface immediately prior to the placement of the plug rebar cage and concrete. Initially, these inspections were performed exclusively in the dry and were comprised of visual inspection of the rock surface, evaluation of the rock mass relative to photos and logs of the extracted rock core (where available), and intrusive probing of either a pre-existing cored borehole or a destructive hole advanced in the dry from the exposed rock surface. The intrusive probing was intended to quantify the thickness, depth, and infill properties of perceived vertical joints located beneath the exposed rock surface. For footings constructed in deeper water, inspections were primarily visual, performed underwater with the aid of a professional diver via CCTV video connection. A cored borehole was available for comparison to the visual inspection at each such location. The general requirements for the rock on which the footings were to be founded included a minimum RQD of 75%, a minimum TCR of 85%, and a maximum surface sediment thickness of 5mm. Within the disturbed zone of sedimentary breccia located at piers 15 and 16, the minimum values or RQD and TCR were locally reduced to 50% and 75%, respectively. As values of RQD and TCR were only available at 1.5m depth intervals along the rock core, the evaluation criteria were supplemented by the following limits on the cumulative permissible thickness of infilled vertical joints below proposed formation level: The top 500mm underlying the formation level must be free of any weak layers (vertical joints);

The total thickness of infilled joints must not exceed 100mm between 500 and 1000mm depths; The total thickness of infilled joints must not exceed 200mm between 500 and 2000mm depths. These limitations were based on the structural engineers requirement to control vertical settlement of the far corner of a pier foundation to less than 15mm (under a factored ULS bearing pressure of approximately 12.5MPa based on the most onerous eccentric loading condition). When these specific requirements were not met in the field, the condition was evaluated for settlement using footingspecific bearing pressures, assuming a 1-on-1 load shed through the rock layers, and a conservative estimate of joint infill stiffness. 10 COLD WEATHER CONCRETING REQUIREMENTS

11

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The construction of the foundations of the Saint Lawrence River Bridge was conducted year-round. Hence, special measures were taken during the winter months in the concreting of these substructures. Winter concreting requirements for bridges in Quebec are set forth in the CCDG (2009), as summarized below. 10.1 CCDG Concrete Temperature Placement Restrictions According to the CCDG, all concrete shall maintain a minimum temperature of 10C for a minimum period of 7 consecutive days following concrete placement or until the concrete has achieved a minimum of 70% of its required 28-day compressive strength, whichever is longer. After the protection period, the temperature of the concrete can be lowered during the first 24 hours at a rate no faster than 10C/hour. The concrete shall not be put in contact with the external air if the difference between the concrete temperature and air temperature is greater than 20C. Underwater (tremie) concreting is prohibited at water temperatures below 5C, and concreting in the open air is prohibited if the temperature of the external air is below 0C. Type 1 protection must be provided if the external air temperature drops below 5C within 48 hours following concrete placement. 10.2 CCDG Concrete Protection Types The CCDG describes three types (levels) of concrete protection during cold weather placement. During the concreting of the St. Lawrence River Bridge foundations, two different types of protection were employed, as described below: Type 1 protection: Completely covering all concrete surfaces with layers of impermeable insulating material (sheets of foam with closed cells having an RSI thermal resistance of 0.40) with a minimum overlap of 75 mm. Type 2 protection: Construction of an impermeable and strong enclosure around the concrete structure with heating appliances to generate and circulate a stream of hot air inside the enclosure to maintain the concrete at the required temperature.

This paper has presented key aspects of the design and construction of the foundations for the Autoroute 30 Saint Lawrence River Bridge near Montral, Qubec. The foundations consist of 6m square pads bearing on strong to very strong light grey quartzitic sandstone. In an effort to limit the plan area and weight of these foundations to resist sliding and overturning derived from ice impact and earthquake forces, over 1400 micropiles were installed to act as passive tension elements. Extensive temporary works were required to construct the bridge foundations, including temporary access bunds constructed from the northern and southern riverbanks along with temporary cofferdams. Bridge foundations were constructed and inspected both in the dry and underwater. Foundation inspections in the dry consisted of visual inspection supplemented by physical probing of a cored or destructive hole to investigate the presence of underlying vertical joints, while underwater inspections were performed visually via CCTV with the aid of a diver. As foundation construction was performed year-round, winter concreting procedures were employed, which consisted either of providing insulation to contain the heat of hydration of the concrete, or construction of enclosures with active heating. REFERENCES Bieniawski, Z.T. 1974. Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling. Proc. 3rd Int. Cong. Rock Mechanics, Denver 2 (2), pp. 27-32. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2006. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (and Commentary) CAN/CSA-S6-06. Canadian Geological Survey. 1969. Tectonic Map of Canada. CCDG. 2009. Cahier des Charges et Devis Gnraux Infrastructures Routires Construction et Rparation, Ministre des Transports du Qubec. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 34(8): pp. 1165-1186. Rocher, M., Tremblay, A., Lavoies, D., AND Campeau, A. 2003. Brittle fault evolution of the Montreal area (St Lawrence Lowlands, Canada): rift-related structural inheritance and tectonism approached by palaeostress analysis. Geol. Mag. 140 (2), pp. 157172. Wyllie, D.C. and Mah, C.W. 2004. Rock Slope Engineering: Civil and Mining, Fourth Edition, Spon Pres, London and New York.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d) (e) (f) Figure 4. Underwater Foundation Construction Sequence: (a) cofferdam installation; (b) soil and rock excavation, internal cofferdam bracing; (c) placement of bottom plug rebar cage, micropile sleeves, and tremie concreting of bottom plug; (d) short-term (or longer-term) cofferdam dewatering; (e) micropile drilling, placement and grouting from a working platform on top of the cofferdam, either in the wet or dry; (f) footing construction (in the dry)

Figure 5. Temporary Cofferdam Assembly

Figure 6. Footing and Column Reinforcement Placement

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi